Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18
about civil-rights. the second part of your question, how did he get kennedy -- it takes a lot of pages in this book to talk about all the things he does but the thing he does on the instant, this bill appears to be totally dead. he says didn't someone file a discharge petition? discharge petition had been filed -- this bill was in a committee that was never going to let it out. wasn't even the senate. still in the house rules committee which was shared by judge howard w. smith and would even give a date. the bill was going nowhere. johnson remembers someone filed a discharge petition to take away from that committee. that was -- a discharge petition ever -- never passed. violation of house rules and no president had ever gotten behind one before. johnson calls the representative who introduces it and representative of missouri has been told by the leaders dropped this thing and listen to johnson in this telephone call to see a genius in human nature because the first half of the call, we can't violate the house pre ♪ >> this is book tv's live coverage of the national books s festival
a book called "sons of mississippi," the book previous to this, a study of the civil rights south and integration of james meredith at the university of ol miss. i like to pick out subjects that i feel have a lot of resonance to the culture history biography. >> and paul's most recent book national book critic circle award finalist. thank you for joining us o up next on booktv mallory factor talks about the power of government employee unions and the impact it's had on policy making. this is just under an hour.
, but it's a pretty dangerous place to be. we need -- we need to have that conversation, the civil rights issue of the 21st century are that, race and poverty, and, of course, education is, indeed, governor romney said it the other day, i had to look at the notes to see i had it right, and the criminal justice system because in addition to the discrimination that violates the law, job discrimination, discrimination in housing and housing finance and so on, we have what we all know in terms of the structural, institutional discrimination of how our schools ordinary reason and opee systemmings and michelle alexander and the new jim crow, published by the new press, has made so clear how our criminal justice system operates. now, that's the basic set of things that we talk about in the book. i also talk, and i won't go into it in great length here, but about poverty in relation to place. our inner cities, app -- appalachia, colonial south texas, all of that because that's where we have the persistent poverty where we have the intergenerational poverty, and it -- i found it very interesting.
, engaged the senators in discussion of how he felt about the issues, and it became clear he felt the civil rights act, a thomas just think, he thought there was no such thing as a right to privacy to the constitution, and the senate by a vote of 58-42 said to conservative and he was voted down. ronald reagan nominated instead to that seat anthony kennedy, who was serving a liberal but was certainly no robert bork either. and he has had a long and distinguished career as, now the swing vote on the court. and that really, that set, that really set up the rehnquist years. accord which i wrote about in my last book, "the nine," and when i started looking at the supreme court in a serious way as a writer, i was inspired by book that i'm sure is familiar to many of you called the brethren by scott armstrong and bob woodward, really a great book, first real behind the scenes book of the supreme court. and 15, the theme of the book was also justices, regardless of politics couldn't stand were in burger. they thought he was at pompous jerk. that sort of contention has been the rule more than the ex
with civil rights of the '60s. >> host: john is from illinois now. john is an independent. hi there. >> caller: hi. mr. johnson, the only problem i have is about the tax issue. and the reason why it's like -- the reason why i say that is, our taxes in this country have never been set at actually to be fair. what they were set up for originally was that the rich were supposed to pay the majority of their taxes in federal taxes, and the working class and the poor were supposed to pay most of -- the majority of theirs in home owners taxes, city and state taxes. and that has been all -- it's got everything out of sorts. my problem with what everybody calls a fair tax is, when you're on a fixed income, and these states are going to have to have such a high tax rate because the federal government is going to have such a lower one, that when anybody that is on a fixed tax rate goes in and buys a refrigerator, they cost $400, the lowest one they can buy, they have about $100 tax on the refrigerator. that is the problem. and the only ones it's going to hurt is people that are retired, people
these cases can be so big they can be exported. civil-rights concerned about cutting back on class-action. too expensive to litigate each case one by one. the justices in the comcast case will consider the question of how much judges should decide about the case before certifying and saying everyone can be in all the lawsuits together. do they have to figure route if all these people and have one theory of damages or have to look at whether there was a fraud or securities fraud case so there will be more in line of the wal-mart decision about class-action procedure? two tiny actions. people in college try to get text books that are not incredibly expensive. the supreme court has a copyright case about what happens with market goods. text books made overseas when sold at a lower price are imported to the united states. producer of that book or any other copyrighted material have a right to limit it coming into the united states and actually a body on the questions of when a lawsuit is moved. a very lawyer the the the the issue but those who are interested and are practicing lawyers there are fi
question front and center unlike in the civil rights and the feminists and many of the important movement of our time where there was fear of going in that direction, it would split people, they weren't ready for it, the police would be angry and all the rest of it. this is a movement that said, no, no, no, we're putting the question of the 1% right front and center. that opens a space that i have since filled, that this book is not doable without the space opened by occupy wall street for the interest. if i'm correct in understanding, this is now in its third printing, and it only appeared in may of this year. that -- the thanks go to the people like the occupy wall street people who are willing to break from the tradition not to be limited by the tweedledum, tweedledee either/or republican and democrat and are willing to now push in another direction. >> well, another question on the occupy movement is, was asked about, well, what's happened to it? it seems to have gone into some kind of reis access or stasis. recess or stasis. >> a great political leader of the left whose name i won't
marriage equality, i think it is constitutionally guaranteed with the civil-rights of the '60s. >> host: john is the independent. >> caller: mr. johnson mr. johnson, the only problem i have is about the tax issue. our taxes have never been set up to be fair. originally for the rich to pay them majority of taxes in federal taxes and a working class or poor would pay the majority of there's of homeowners gomez city, and state taxes. my problem with a fair tax is we're on a fixed income. the states will have to have such a high tax rate because the federal government has such a low were one. if someone buys a refrigerator at $700 there will be the $100 tax. that is the problem. the only when it will hurt are the people that are retired, disability, and the things like that. otherwise i am in completely in line with you. i voted for ron paul. i voted for paul brown. i cannot remember what year he ran. i voted for ross perot once. i am very open-minded better watch things closely. >> host: thank you for calling. gary johnson and the reaction? >> guest: by going to a national consumption tax
's civil rights, workers rights, or women's rights where people remember why unioners created. most of the world has no rex why it happened. you had to work 18 hours and never got overtime. you got paid a number you live in a town which you work. people don't understand where the value base came from. there is going to be an evolution or innovation in the movement. i see union doing all kinds of interesting thing. don't corporate affairs work they follow pension resources and they take their own money and create economic development. that's smart. looking how do i get economic activity get my folks. ensure my rate of return. do something to get the economy to move again. i think there's a lot of compelling unions that are think abouting it circhtly. to underestimate the kind of [inaudible] >> i would say one thing to watch political any in the jersey we come from a unionized state than a lot of states in the south. the union have different power and i think one of the things that is important to watch you saw it in wisconsin and you see in other places it's a growing system between
when we will knock it as fast as we can. the weekly standard would agree with civil-rights the goal should be equality of opportunity, not the quality of result, so i think that if you are seeing -- and i don't know that the figures that you gave me are accurate it might reflect the fact that there's a republican primary going on or the fact that one party at that particular time is feeling the same standards the same journalistic standards more than another. you can infer that there are more criticisms of one side and another coming and i think this varies over time and the actual fact that if there is any bias on our part that is just a false logic. >> i don't know if some of those are complaints about republicans criticizing other republicans. it's certainly not 3-1 on our side >> other questions? >> i am keeping deborah hopping. >> addition with we've heard about people choosing to believe their side for their team because i count myself among them i don't think many voters believe being a lawyer is a disqualifying characteristic for a candidate. what is the benefit that you are
was the attorney for the american civil liberties union. the judge would say, all right. we're going to have an argument on that point of law. parents to you want to come back into my office. leyritz was sick, no, let arthur and of that. i don't do that. earlier in his career, i don't know how many of you had to read but the author was an attorney. he became the legal partner. most of the legal brief writing, when they had to go into the appeals court was done by masters. there is a whole chapter about their very famous falling got and the incredible spite they had for each other for the rest of their lives. they were both very greedy, womanizers, and both convinced that they were literary men thrown into the wrong profession and what they really needed was peace and quiet that the other one make all the money so i can retreat to my office or write poetry and novels. it is a great untold story of american legal history. >> did daryl ever get involved in politics and endorsed any candidates, though i expect a candid it might not want his endorsement. >> one of the exciting things i found when
that right while taking position in a conflict in the country, speaking about syria, that is currently confronted with a civil war where of atrocities will always be committed by both sides. although of course i understand that those atrocities are greater than once are committed by -- and how do the respect that right in a situation of a civil war? >> it's not just accepting frederick it is essentially a position of the international world. helsinki accords to the u.n., but this isn't achievable in every country that we would like it to be right now. there are a lot of countries where you don't have those kinds of rights that we have good solid relations with china, like you mention, the largest in the world. so it is an aspiration and it is an aspiration that increasingly over time and over the last few years has become a reality. in sony parts of the world. so we keep pushing the aspiration forward, keep hoping that country after country when a group of people after another, will learn to live in peace, learn to build a representative form of government. i would like these represent
it was strengthening our economy that we defend the civil liberties and rights of every new hampshire citizens because we want to attract people of talent and energy to our states. that means defending our marriage equality law and making sure that women can chart their own destiny by making their own health care decisions .. i love the public debate between you and ovide lamontagne. has been on social issues. any that you disagree and, how much impact they have on the economy and the impact -- business of new hampshire? hassan: i was on a plan last spring and i sat next to a young man who recruits for a major new hampshire business. he was telling me how important the marriage equality law that we passed was to his recruiting efforts because young people were more interested in coming to new hampshire to work here because we were committed to treating all of our granite staters the police. similarly for women the ability to make their own decisions about when to have families, about what kind of balance they want to seek in the workplace, finishing school, all of those things relate to their ability
inned vading civil liberties, and we're always, you know, working on that, what's the right balance there as well? it is -- it's a big job. >> will you stay in the administration if the president's re-elected? >> i don't answer questions like that. >> if you were not homeland secretary, what job do you want? attorney general? baseball commissioner? what's your dream? >> you really, i think i want to focus on this job.
of principles that we agree with with pakistan on afghanistan. i think neither of us want to see the civil war. we should find that basis. the question people are struggling with right now with the right mechanism in the bilateral relationship, but the right mechanism to pull people together to find those things we have in common. anyone in the last month or six weeks there've been developments i'm not privy to but i sense i'm moving ahead. per your question is a good one. we don't have, to my knowledge, we have not achieved the kind of meeting of minds on afghanistan that were going to need for this process up to 2014 and beyond 2014 to address. so it is an open question i agree if there is a tough one, that is the. i'm an independent consultant and i have a couple of questions that pick up on other points that i believe you made. if i understood you correctly, you really suggesting that we start our relations when people share our values. i'm sympathetic to that idea. i wanted first to make a comment, which many of those people in some sense identified with our values or goals are at least s
, yemen is expressed their will in providing or in niending -- finding a solution or avoiding the civil war, and, therefore, yes, yemen voted yes for a peaceful state. civil state, mod enstate, that is based on rule of law and respect of the rights of which allow us to get into the second phase and to implement what's left of the political solution and get the yemen out of the bottleneck and to make it less safely, and we have law -- draft law of the transition that will assist in solving all the bloodshed and all the conflicts, and we still in need of the political and economic assistance that we'll help -- will help us a lot in implementing all the other segments of the gulf initiative, and this is why the yemen people are looking for. we got tired of conflicts of wars, and now and through the national dialogue that we are preparing for in order to get this dialogue as soon as possible so we will have a blueprint of a prosperous yemeni based on future freedom and equality and through good governess by reforming the administration and combat corruption and focus on development, and we
or the way it has to be done in the civil way, i think this has to be checked, but we cannot launch a war on the terms that we have now so it's not acceptable for anyone, but at the same time, the right that we are giving to some, we should also ask ourselves why there is a lack of consistency in our policies in the region, and this kind of demonization of iran is not helping the region to find solutions so this is one. the second is about what is happening in e just a -- egypt and in -- what was the point you were making was -- >> [inaudible] >> yes, what is happening, the attack against the american embassy, and this that, of course, it's going to be used by the media. it's going to be once again used by people saying, luxe, -- look, even now, what we said about the uprising, ends up with people against the west. inside, it was very much positive in the whole process over the months of the uprisings is new slogans against the west, new slogans against the united states or european country. it was mubarak and e regime, nothing against the west. it was powerful. it was internal talk and s
in it's approach, and we believe it's not the right way to do it. if you look at precedence using the civil aviation organization for consensus building on international aviation issues, is it much more effective way to do this. we have been clear both on p the record, off the record, and at every level with our e.u. counterparts that this is unacceptable, that we do not support it. if you look closely at the reaction around the world, you'll see that we have a lot of other nations in concert with the united states who also believe the unilateral imposition of that emissions trading scheme is inappropriate. finally, there appears to be some recognition on the european side of late that there are real consequences for doing this. we will continue to press for the appropriate avenues for the resolution of an issue like this. we are continuing to make it clear that we have serious concerns and do not believe it should be implemented, and i think the consequences of the european union moving ahead unilaterally are much butter under by the e.u. these days. >> thank you. >> mr. chairma
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18